Why are all blades so short lived now?

[newboy]

I'm not just talking about cheap DE, or even SE blades, but all blades.
The whole reason why I stopped using the M3 was even they only gave 3-4 good shaves. If they lasted long enough, they may have kept me as a customer, but now they've lost me for good.

Yet I constantly read about blades from the 70s that would last over 10 shaves.
Is it just because they want to sell more of them so they make them worse? Is it that the current plants in production (eastern europe, india etc) don't use the technology that the USA and the UK had decades ago? That still doesn't explain why german blades are usually bad though.

If it's just make them real cheap, price them up and then make it go blunt quick just so I come back and buy more, then part of me just wants to say stuff them and switch to a rolls or straight.

I'm not a hard core environmentalist, but it seems to involve a lot of effort to make a blade that lasts 2-3 shaves.
I just find it awkward to not have a blade last 7 days for example, even if it cost a bit more to buy it's easier on me and less materials used to make blades for the world.

If this whole thing of poor blades was started when carts came in, just to make a lot of money on carts, well judging by the membership numbers of forums like B&B, and the fact that most others I know have switched to electric, it's backfiring on them.

So what is stopping some blade manufacturer in making a blade with a decent lifespan?

 

[CB_DoubleEdge]

As a member even newer than you've I've wondered the same thing. I'm curious to see the responses in this thread.

 

[cnnc97]

IMO the shorter the lifespan of the blade the more that we have to buy and the greater their profits are. Would they see enough of an increase in new customers if they made a longer lasting blade vs a shorter lasting blade and more sales from current customers?

 

[newboy]

Possibly. Customers may leave a brand/blade/system for some other if they don't feel it lasts long enough. If some modern day swede comes along, everyone is going to buy a 10 years+ worth stockpile and tell everyone to do the same. So lots more sales possible if they stand out as being better than the competition as longer lasting.
So a short lived blade can make me stop using a cart completely, and switch to wet shaving or electric, that's a life time worth of cart sales lost. A long lived blade can make me buy a life times worth of blades upfront.

 

[Crixus]

I think the average DE blade (bought in bulk) is about $.12 per blade. If you get three good shaves that's $.04 per shave. A penny a pass. What else can you buy for a penny?

I don't think it benefits the manufacturers to try to build longevity into a blade when the profit margins are probably pretty thin already. I'm not sure the original question is about a perception that blades are overpriced for what you get or that they feel it's just a big aggravation to have to change a blade after every 3-4 shaves.

 

[apino]

Manufacturing blades for cheaper means more money to shareholders. People having to buy them more frequently than before is an added bonus.

I have no idea what kind of quality issues the Fusions have (if any) but Gillette continues to manufacture some consistently high quality DE blades, like Astra SP & 7 O'Clock yellows, outside of Europe.

But why the Feathers dull so quickly is a mystery to me. It's a high quality DE blade that seems to give most people around three shaves max - some even claim only one. I once proposed they become "dull" quicker because they are so sharp to begin with; it's easier to feel the difference. But I don't know if there's any truth whatsoever in that.

 

[1stGenRex]

Part of me thinks is so that you buy more, and the other part thinks it's so that you realize how there is still room for improvement, and you buy the next "latest and greatest with MOAR BLADES!!!!!!!" in hopes that the improvement will be there.

 

[Crixus]

But why the Feathers dull so quickly is a mystery to me. It's a high quality DE blade that seems to give most people around three shaves max - some even claim only one. I once proposed they become "dull" quicker because they are so sharp to begin with

I think it's just simple physics. The sharper a blade, the more acute the angle of the edge. The more acute the angle, the thinner the edge. Thin edges tend to curl to the side with use.

It's the same with good kitchen knives. When you see a cook/chef running the knife blade along the honing steel, they are merely "pushing" that curled edge back into straight alignment.

 

[newboy]

Doesn't explain why many old blades from the 70s lasted longer though.

Like I said, I'm not a hard core environmentalist, but when given the choice of cheap clothes/shoes/electronics that last 6 months for example, or something slightly more expensive that lasts longer, I go the slightly more expensive route as I don't like 'buying landfill'. If the technology is there to make a better product, it annoys me that I have to buy something inferior these days and change the blades more often.

 

[texbilly]

You might hear a wide variety of opinions eventually, but there are several blades that give me at least 6-8 comfortable shaves and I do not have a light beard. A few of my favorites: Super Iridium, Gillette 7 O'clock Yellow, Gillette Bleue Extra (allegedly uncoated "Swedes", but far cheaper and still in production).

Any way you compare, there are many choices that are far more economical than cartridges. Good luck!

 

[RSC]

I don't know about the 70's, but I don't think the blades are much shorter-lived now than they were in the 60's. Back then, I think I got a week (maybe) off a stainless, and I get a week easily now. Carbon steel blades, no way could I get a week. I think the blades are actually better now than they were in the 60's.

 

[Crixus]

If the technology is there to make a better product, it annoys me that I have to buy something inferior these days and change the blades more often.

Oh, the technology is there, but surely at an increased cost to produce. So then the argument from consumers changes from "why doesn't it last longer" to "why does it cost so much".

Is a razor blade really a landfill item? When I was in the Navy, the joke about older ships that had seen better days was "They ought to melt her down and make razor blades out of her." Surely in the 21st century the ability to melt down razor blades and make ships out of them is there.

 

[talibeard]

I am not so sure blades were really better then. OK there were the Personna 74's and some long lasting Wilkinsons but those blades were not cheap, so the cost per shave wouldn't be less. I usually get more passes from less sharp blades and less passes with the sharper ones but that is, as Crixus pointed out, simply physics.

There might also be another explanation, apart from "everything used to be better in the old days", for the life span differences as far as they really excist. I mean, I often take 3-pass shaves with the last one being a ATG-pass. There is no real need; my shave is socially acceptable after 2 passes but I just feel I can do better and go ATG. But it is excactly that ATG pass that needs a sharper blade to be comfortable so when it starts pulling there I toss it while it is still ok for one or more WTG/XTG passes.

So I do not just get less shaves because of the extra pass per shave but also because I throw it out sooner. I bet without the ATG I can get 6 or 7 shaves out of blades that give me 3 now.

 

[Chester]

I'm not just talking about cheap DE, or even SE blades, but all blades.
The whole reason why I stopped using the M3 was even they only gave 3-4 good shaves. If they lasted long enough, they may have kept me as a customer, but now they've lost me for good.

Yet I constantly read about blades from the 70s that would last over 10 shaves.
Is it just because they want to sell more of them so they make them worse? Is it that the current plants in production (eastern europe, india etc) don't use the technology that the USA and the UK had decades ago? That still doesn't explain why german blades are usually bad though.

If it's just make them real cheap, price them up and then make it go blunt quick just so I come back and buy more, then part of me just wants to say stuff them and switch to a rolls or straight.

I'm not a hard core environmentalist, but it seems to involve a lot of effort to make a blade that lasts 2-3 shaves.
I just find it awkward to not have a blade last 7 days for example, even if it cost a bit more to buy it's easier on me and less materials used to make blades for the world.

If this whole thing of poor blades was started when carts came in, just to make a lot of money on carts, well judging by the membership numbers of forums like B&B, and the fact that most others I know have switched to electric, it's backfiring on them.

So what is stopping some blade manufacturer in making a blade with a decent lifespan?

As for your final question, I think it's all about the benjamins, and the fact the DE blades just don't capture much attention, and that they're commodity items. With 70+ different brands, where's the real benefit to being the stand-out offering? As many folks like to point out (and I disagree with the assumption behind it, but I'll put that aside for this thread), there's one perfect blade out there for each person, and no two people can possibly have the same experience with a blade. If it's really so subjective, then why should any manufacturer focus purely on durability or expensive materials or production process? It's a game that cannot be won. Instead, focus on producing (as cheaply as possible) quality serviceable blades that most people will use and like, and let brand loyalty be the bonus. There's nothing wrong with excellence, and some manufacturers do a great job (I'm looking at YOU, Wizamet!), but it isn't the guiding factor.

I think there are plenty of very sharp, durable current-production offerings out there. As for your opinion of german blades, I encourage you to try Souplex, Bolzano or Timor blades -- I find them to be both durable and sharp. I find Iridiums to be very durable, fwiw.

As crixus pointed out, the price per-shave is very very low. I feel no need to get more than three shaves out of a current-production blade, though I have pushed a few out to 5-7 shaves with no real ill effects (Gillette Bleue Extras and Annecy Swedes were both pretty durable). The only reason I feel a need to get 7-10 shaves out of a Spoiler, Wilk Super Sword, Schick Plus Platinum or Gillette Platinum Plus is because the per-blade cost is so high. When I used carts, I would frequently push them for as long as I could for the same reason. Why do that, anymore, though?

In the end, after all the shaving I've done with the out-of-production blades (6 solid weeks thus far and I have another month to go), I can appreciate the durability, but it's just not that big of a deal to me, given that you can find very sharp, smooth (and reasonably durable) current-production blades for so cheap.

My $.02,
-- Chet

 

[RSC]

I don't know about the 70's, but I don't think the blades are much shorter-lived now than they were in the 60's. Back then, I think I got a week (maybe) off a stainless, and I get a week easily now. Carbon steel blades, no way could I get a week. I think the blades are actually better now than they were in the 60's.

I do have to admit that my prep is better now than it was then.

 

[newboy]

I am not so sure blades were really better then. OK there were the Personna 74's and some long lasting Wilkinsons but those blades were not cheap, so the cost per shave wouldn't be less. I usually get more passes from less sharp blades and less passes with the sharper ones but that is, as Crixus pointed out, simply physics.

There might also be another explanation, apart from "everything used to be better in the old days", for the life span differences as far as they really excist. I mean, I often take 3-pass shaves with the last one being a ATG-pass. There is no real need; my shave is socially acceptable after 2 passes but I just feel I can do better and go ATG. But it is excactly that ATG pass that needs a sharper blade to be comfortable so when it starts pulling there I toss it while it is still ok for one or more WTG/XTG passes.

So I do not just get less shaves because of the extra pass per shave but also because I throw it out sooner. I bet without the ATG I can get 6 or 7 shaves out of blades that give me 3 now.

For me, without ATG passes, I might as well use an electric and not use wet shaving or any DE or SE blades.
It could be how flat my beard grows, but really my face is sandpaper unless it do i) ATG, ii) buffing over the trickier spots.
I'm not just saying everything old is better, there's no rose tint on my glasses like believing gillette's old ads that their blade was good for 30 shaves. I'm just noticing that right now people that would get 3 shaves last week could get more out of a vintage blade this week, with the same razor and prep.
Yes we are all different, some here could get 6 shaves with a derby, I'd get through WTG one pass before I threw the blade away because they are terrible for me. But I'm comparing the same guy with the same prep, soap, brush and razor who claims 3 shaves with a modern blade, but more with a vintage blade.

As for as blade cost etc. Surely everyone doesn't buy the cheapest product for everything they buy, some would like the option for a longer lasting blade.
Just like everyone doesn't buy the cheapest food and clothing. The more expensive brands get by and make sales.

 

[mikromicke]

wasn't there a post about a guy making a blade coated with synthetic diamonds recently)? Very sharp, very long lived and very expensive.

The solution to the problem is btw to get a straight

 

[newboy]

wasn't there a post about a guy making a blade coated with synthetic diamonds recently)? Very sharp, very long lived and very expensive.

The solution to the problem is btw to get a straight

I've already said in the OP

then part of me just wants to say stuff them and switch to a rolls or straight.

I'd be happy with a SE or DE that lasted 7 shaves though until I learn the skills to move off the grid.

 

[DE Shaver]

I must admit that I thought I had a fairly tough beard. Electric shavers had trouble on it and it wasn't uncommon for my old Phillishave (many years gone) to actually catch hairs and lock up. However, I'm able to get 4 to 5 shaves from DE blades. As a matter of course, I discard after 3 shaves so that I don't have to worry about tracking the number of shaves. DE razor blades are so cheap that they're not a serious budgetary constraint when compared to the other components. I consider soap the "expensive" consumable and the hardware (e.g. razor, brush, etc...) the "big ticket" items. The price of blades, when purchased from on-line vendors, is very affordable for just about everybody.

If I were to extend the blade use, 5 shaves is achievable for most current productions blades for me. That's why I'm a little perplexed that some people are only able to get 3 shaves or even 1 shave out of a blade before having to discard them. It's been my observation, blades do require a little bit of a "break-in" so I'm left wondering if people are discarding them prematurely because they shave a little different as the week progresses, thinking the blade has become dull. Regardless, I am uncertain why current production blades seem to have such a short lifespan for some but not others. Beard preparation, oxidation and technique all play a yet to be determined role in blade longevity.

 

[kehern]

I heard that blades were thicker in the olden days, due to them not having good enough technology to make thinner, sharper blades as we do now. I'm not sure exactly when they were thicker, as in how many years ago that was, but presumably if the blade was thicker, it may last a few extra shaves. Or I could have zero idea what I'm talking about!